Finis Dake’s theological teachings represent a dramatic departure from orthodox Christianity, teaching three separate gods instead of the Trinity, claiming God has a physical body with limitations, and promoting doctrines that mainstream theologians and denominations have condemned as heretical. His Dake Annotated Reference Bible, selling 40,000 copies annually, continues to influence Pentecostal and Charismatic movements through prominent Word-Faith teachers like Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn, despite being rejected by the Assemblies of God and other major denominations. Understanding why Dake’s views are problematic requires examining the difference between his hyperliteral interpretations and the sophisticated theological framework developed over two millennia of Christian thought.
Three Gods or One? Dake’s Radical Redefinition of the Trinity
The most serious theological error in Dake’s system involves his complete redefinition of the Trinity doctrine. While using orthodox terminology, Dake teaches something fundamentally different from historic Christianity.
Orthodox Christianity maintains that God exists as one divine essence in three distinct persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three persons share the same divine nature while maintaining their distinct personal identities. As the Nicene Creed states, Christ is “true God from true God” and “consubstantial with the Father,” meaning of the same essence. The Athanasian Creed further clarifies: “We worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.”
Dake, however, explicitly rejects this foundational doctrine. In his book God’s Plan for Man, he states:
“The old idea that God exists as three persons in one person is not only unscriptural, but it is ridiculous to say the least.”
Instead, he teaches that the Trinity consists of three separate beings, writing that “God can be three distinct persons as separate and distinct as any three persons we know of in this life.” Each member of Dake’s “Trinity” has “a soul, spirit, and spirit body,” making them three separate gods working in unity rather than one God in three persons.
The Council of Soissons (1092-1093) and the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) specifically rejected this doctrine because it denies monotheism – the foundational biblical teaching that there is only one God. Reformed theologian Michael Horton notes that “Dake’s view on the Trinity is similar to Mormon theology and is heretical,” while the Christian Research Institute states it “denies the historic Christian church doctrine that God, in Trinity, is one in essence.”
God in a Body: Misunderstanding Divine Transcendence
Dake’s second major theological error involves teaching that God the Father has a literal physical body. He writes in his annotated Bible that God “has a personal spirit body; shape; form; image and likeness of a man. He has bodily parts such as, back parts, heart, hands and fingers, mouth, lips and tongue, feet, eyes, ears, hair, head, face, arms, loins, and other bodily parts.”
This interpretation stems from Dake’s hyperliteral approach to biblical anthropomorphisms – passages that describe God using human characteristics. When the Bible speaks of God’s “hand” or “eyes,” orthodox Christianity has always understood these as metaphorical language that helps finite humans understand an infinite God.
The early church fathers like Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa developed the principle of “accommodation” – God uses human language and concepts to communicate truths about Himself to our limited minds. When Scripture says God “walks” or has “hands,” it’s using figurative language to express spiritual realities. The Bible itself warns against literal interpretation of such passages, stating “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19) and “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Dake’s literal interpretation creates philosophical problems as well. An infinite God cannot have a finite, material body. By claiming God lives “on a material planet called Heaven” and “goes from place to place in a body like all other persons,” Dake limits God’s transcendence and reduces Him to a super-powered being rather than the infinite Creator. Biblical scholar Gleason Archer calls this view an “aberrational absurdity” that fundamentally misunderstands the nature of biblical language about God.
When Omniscience Isn’t Omniscient: Dake’s Limited God
Perhaps most troubling is Dake’s denial of God’s complete knowledge, or omniscience. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God knows everything – past, present, and future – with perfect and complete knowledge. As Scripture states, “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit” (Psalm 147:5).
Dake, however, explicitly limits God’s knowledge. He writes that omniscience “must be understood in a limited sense” and claims:
“God comes to know certain acts of free and sovereign wills” over time.
He argues that God “does not plan or try to know from all eternity past the infinite details” about all beings. In his system, God learns new information, sends messengers to report what’s happening on Earth, and was genuinely surprised by human wickedness before the flood.
The theological implications are severe: if God doesn’t know the future, He cannot guarantee His promises, cannot ensure prophecies will come true, and cannot be trusted as the sovereign ruler of the universe. God’s omniscience is inseparable from His omnipotence and omnipresence – together they reveal His perfect lordship over all creation.
The Influence Spreads: Dake’s Impact on Modern Christianity
Despite widespread theological condemnation, Dake’s teachings have profoundly influenced the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, particularly through the Word-Faith movement. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible sells approximately 40,000 copies annually and has been called “the Pentecostal Study Bible.”
Major televangelists and Word-Faith teachers have embraced Dake’s theology:
- Jimmy Swaggart declared, “Finis Dake was a scholar unparalleled. I owe my Bible education to this man.”
- Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and Benny Hinn all use and promote Dake’s materials.
- In 1993, Benny Hinn admitted in Charisma magazine that he taught his congregation from Dake’s God’s Plan for Man.
- Other adopters include Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Rod Parsley, and Marilyn Hickey.
This influence extends globally through television ministries and international church networks. Second and third-generation ministers trained under Dake-influenced teachers continue spreading these doctrines, often without realizing their unorthodox origins. The prosperity gospel’s emphasis on God responding to human demands aligns with Dake’s limited view of divine sovereignty and knowledge.
Denominational Rejection and Scholarly Consensus
Mainstream Christian denominations and scholars have consistently rejected Dake’s teachings. The Assemblies of God revoked Dake’s ordination in 1937 following his conviction under the Mann Act for transporting a minor across state lines “for immoral purposes.” George Wood, the denomination’s General Secretary, stated clearly:
“His opinions are in direct conflict with our statement of fundamental truth.”
Academic theologians universally condemn Dake’s core doctrines. Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute warns that Dake’s theology “sometimes has as much in common with the cults as with historic Christian theology.” Christianity Today published a major exposé in 1994 titled “Scholars Scrutinize Popular Dake’s Bible,” documenting theological problems.
Multiple seminary professors and theological journals have written against Dake’s influence, with scholars noting his work contains “just enough truth to make his error seem plausible and convincing.” Even critics acknowledge some positive elements in Dake’s work – his extensive cross-referencing system, emphasis on Bible study, and systematic topical approach. However, the theological consensus remains clear: the doctrinal errors are too serious to overlook.
Historical Heresies Resurface in Modern Dress
Dake’s teachings aren’t new inventions but resurrections of ancient heresies the church condemned centuries ago. Understanding this historical context helps explain why theologians react so strongly to his doctrines.
| Historical Heresy | Time Period | Church Response | Connection to Dake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tritheism | 6th century (John Philoponus) | Condemned by Third Council of Constantinople | Dake teaches three separate gods |
| Corporeal God | 11th century (Roscelin) | Condemned at Council of Soissons | Dake claims God has physical body |
| Limited Omniscience | Various (Open Theism) | Rejected by orthodox churches | Dake denies God’s complete knowledge |
The early church spent centuries carefully developing Trinity doctrine to maintain both God’s unity and the distinction of persons. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) established that Christ is “of the same substance” as the Father, while Constantinople (381 AD) affirmed the Holy Spirit’s full divinity.
These councils rejected both modalism (one God appearing in different modes) and tritheism (three separate gods), establishing the orthodox position of one essence in three persons. Similarly, the church has always distinguished between literal and figurative biblical language about God.
Understanding Complex Theology at a Practical Level
For high school students encountering these theological debates, several key principles help navigate the complexity:
1. Words Matter in Theology
When Dake uses “Trinity” but means something completely different from historic Christianity, he creates confusion. Understanding precise definitions helps identify when teachers depart from orthodox faith, even when using familiar terminology.
2. Biblical Interpretation Requires Careful Thought
The Bible uses various literary forms – poetry, narrative, prophecy, parable – each requiring appropriate interpretation. Taking everything literally actually dishonors Scripture by missing the authors’ intended meanings. When Psalm 91 says God has “feathers,” recognizing this as poetic imagery about divine protection shows greater respect for the text than imagining God as a giant bird.
3. Church History Provides Essential Context
Contemporary teachers didn’t discover new truths previous generations missed. When someone’s interpretation contradicts two thousand years of Christian understanding, extreme caution is warranted. The early church councils didn’t create new doctrines but clarified what Christians had always believed against emerging heresies.
4. Theology Has Practical Consequences
If God doesn’t know the future, prayer becomes uncertain. If there are three gods instead of one, Christianity becomes polytheistic like ancient paganism. If God has a body and location, He cannot be omnipresent to hear prayers everywhere simultaneously. These aren’t abstract philosophical debates but issues affecting daily Christian life and worship.
Conclusion: Why This Matters for Faith Today
Finis Dake’s theological system, despite its popularity in certain Christian circles, represents a dangerous departure from biblical Christianity that resurrects ancient heresies condemned by the early church. His teaching of three separate gods contradicts the foundational Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while his belief in God’s physical body and limited knowledge undermines divine transcendence and perfection.
Though marketed as biblical literalism that honors Scripture, Dake’s hyperliteral approach actually distorts biblical meaning by failing to recognize the sophisticated use of metaphorical language that communicates profound spiritual truths. The ongoing influence of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible through Word-Faith teachers demonstrates the importance of theological education and discernment within contemporary Christianity.
While Dake’s work contains some helpful study tools and demonstrates passion for Scripture, the core theological errors are too serious to overlook. The unanimous rejection by mainstream denominations and biblical scholars – from the Assemblies of God’s revocation of his ordination to consistent academic criticism – reflects not mere theological pickiness but concern for fundamental Christian truth.
For students of theology, Dake’s errors serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of simplistic biblical interpretation that ignores the wisdom of historic Christianity in favor of novel readings that may seem compelling but ultimately lead away from orthodox faith. The core question remains: Will we trust the collective wisdom of two millennia of Christian thought, or follow one man’s radical reinterpretation that turns the one true God into three separate beings?
© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.
